Cited by 95Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMedical Coding and Health InformationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Comparing the validity of different ICD coding abstraction strategies for sepsis case identification in German claims data

Open access
Fleischmann-Struzek, Carolin, Thomas-Rüddel, Daniel O., Schettler, Anna, Schwarzkopf, Daniel, Stacke, Angelika, Seymour, Christopher W., Haas, Christoph, Dennler, Ulf +1 more·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Administrative data are used to generate estimates of sepsis epidemiology and can serve as source for quality indicators. Aim was to compare estimates on sepsis incidence and mortality based on different ICD-code abstraction strategies and to assess their validity for sepsis case identification based on a patient sample not pre-selected for presence of sepsis codes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the national DRG-statistics for assessment of population-level sepsis incidence and mortality. Cases were identified by three previously published International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding strategies for sepsis based on primary and secondary discharge diagnoses (clinical sepsis codes (R-codes), explicit coding (all sepsis codes) and implicit coding (combined infection and organ dysfunction codes)). For the validation study, a stratified sample of 1120 adult patients admitted to a German academic medical center between 2007-2013 was selected. Administrative diagnoses were compared to a gold standard of clinical sepsis diagnoses based on manual chart review. RESULTS: In the validation study, 151/937 patients had sepsis. Explicit coding strategies performed better regarding sensitivity compared to R-codes, but had lower PPV. The implicit approach was the most sensitive for severe sepsis; however, it yielded a considerable number of false positives. R-codes and explicit strategies underestimate sepsis incidence by up to 3.5-fold. Between 2007-2013, national sepsis incidence ranged between 231-1006/100,000 person-years depending on the coding strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In the sample of a large tertiary care hospital, ICD-coding strategies for sepsis differ in their accuracy. Estimates using R-codes are likely to underestimate the true sepsis incidence, whereas implicit coding overestimates sepsis cases. Further multi-center evaluation is needed to gain better understanding on the validity of sepsis coding in Germany.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0198847

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, Murphy DJ, Seymour CW, Iwashyna TJ, et al Estimating The National Burden Of Sepsis Using Clinical Data. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2017; 195: A5010.
  2. [28]Mikolajetz A, Fleischmann C, Schwarzkopf D, Thomas-Rüddel D, Reinhart K. Trends in infection and sepsis incidence and mortality in Germany (abstract). 38th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (ISICEM). 2018;Brussels, March 20–23 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fleischmann-Struzek, C., Thomas-Rüddel, D. O., Schettler, A., Schwarzkopf, D., Stacke, A., Seymour, C. W., Haas, C., Dennler, U., & Reinhart, K.
Affiliations
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Reinhart, Konrad
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-07-30
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
e0198847
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2886200927
Cited by
95
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EO1002 and 01EO1502)
  • National Institutes of Health (R35GM119519)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
sepsis, ICD coding, administrative data, sepsis incidence, sepsis mortality, case finding, R code, hospital discharge diagnoses
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Biometry, Female, Germany, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Incidence, Sepsis, International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Coding, Tertiary Care Centers, Epidemiological Monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review